SH 378 
.G6 

Copy 1 



5^ ^crUct:- 



QAL^,My' 




.0 



^l«t 







Gass SH^78 
Book 



n 



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES 

HUGH M. SMITH. Commi9«ion«t 



E PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER 
MUSSELS 



By 8. E. COKER. Ph. D. 

Director U. S. Biological Station 
Fairpo^i, Towa 



B(ir<au of Fi&heries Document No. 7^3 




WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1914 



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES 

HUGH M. SMITH, Commissioner 



THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER 
MUSSELS 



By R. E. CoKER, Ph. D. 

Director U . S. Biological Station 
Fairport, Tozva 



Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 793 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1914 






0. OF D. 
FEi 24 1914 






THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS 

By R. E. COKER, Ph. D. 

Director U. S. Biological Station. Fairport. Iowa 



Bureau of Fisheriiss Document No. 793 
23180°— 14 1 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Present conditions ^- 3 

The mussel industry 3 

Depletion of the resources 4 

The interests of tke community 5 

Artificial propagation of mussels by the Government 7 

Establishment of propagation 7 

Results dependent upon protection 8 

Protection 9 

Essential considerations for effectiA'e legislation 9 

Examination of protective measures 10 

Two measures for immediate application 10 

Measures not suited to existing conditions 10 

Size limit — necessity and application 12 

Exhaustive nature of the fishery 12 

Waste illustrated 13 

Size limit in relation to economy 15 

Reasons for the proposed 2-inch limit 16 

Details essential to effective legislation 17 

Closed regions — necessity and application 18 

Injury to spawning mussels and to young 18 

Considerations determining size of closed regions 19 

Practicable division of river s}-stems illustrated 20 

Procedure for establishing closed regions 21 

Enforcement of the law 22 

Summary of recommended legislation 23 

2 



THE PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 



By R. E. COKER, Ph. D., 
Director United States Biological Station, Fairport, Iowa. 



PRESENT CONDITIONS. 
THE MUSSEL INDUSTRY. 

The history of the fresh- water mussel industry gives illustration 
of the promptness with which an American industry may be de- 
veloped once the pathway is found. Undertaken in a small way 
scarcely more than a score of years ago, the manufacture of pearl 
buttons began almost immediately to assume the proportions of an 
important national industry. As early as 1898, when the enterprise 
was only G years old, there were about 50 factories in more than a 
dozen towns along the Mississippi. With improved machinery and 
methods further expansion occurred, until within a few years the 
output approximated 30 million gross of buttons, with a value of 
many millions of dollars. The growth of the industry has continued 
to the present time, but exact figures will not be available until the 
Bureau has completed a statistical survey now in progress. 

Not less important has been a resultant economic change, or modi- 
fication of custom, that has affected practically every person in the 
country. Wliere marine pearl was in rare use, fresh-water pearl, 
with its quality and price, came to fill a universal requirement. 
In one decade pearl buttons were high in price, used only upon the 
better clothing, and commonly saved when clothing was discarded, 
while in the most general use were buttons of metal or agate or w^ood, 
which rusted or broke or warped. In the next decade good pearl 
buttons, neat and durable, were available to everybody and used upon 
the widest variety of clothing. A former luxury had become a 
common necessity. 

Coincident with the rise of the manu:^cturing industry, there 
developed an important and widespread fishery, directly employing 
thousands of persons and indirectly affecting persons and com- 
munities of varied occupation. Commencing on the Mississippi 

3 



4 PEOTECTION OF FEESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

River, the fishery gradually spread from stream to stream, passing 
from depleted teri'itory to new and rich fields, until it embraced prac- 
tically the entire Mississippi Basin and a portion of the Great Lakes 
drainage, from Minnesota to Louisiana, north and south, and from 
Ohio, West Virginia, and Tennessee on the east to Arkansas, Kansas, 
and South Dakota on the west. 

DEPLETION OF THE RESOURCES. 

Extension of territory could not be continued indefinitely. Wliile 
up to the present time the industry has not failed to obtain shells in 
quantity sufficient for the market demands, it has become perfectly 
clear that the perpetuation of the industry as one producing a staple 
product that is both good and within reach of all people depends 
upon successful propagation and effective protection. The supply is 
now maintained by regularly invading new territory (and it is 
scarcely possible to go farther in this direction) , by seeking out the 
smaller tributaries of the mussel streams, which could not formerly 
have been worked with profit, and in some measure by the devising of 
methods that are more effective in capture of mussels. Notwithstand- 
ing these developments, all of which indeed conduce to more exhaustive 
fishery, an increasing proportion of very small shells is being taken^ 
the bottoms are being more thoroughly cleaned, and the price of shell 
has advanced to a relatively high figure. 

A high price for shell has, of course, its advantages. It is good 
for the fishermen, provided they can find the shells, and it stimulates 
the manufacturers to eliminate waste and to use the most economical 
methods. On the other hand, if unbalanced by protective restric- 
tions, a continued rise in price is of disastrous consequence. It im- 
poverishes the beds by driving the fishermen to the most exhaustive 
manner of fishing; even the very smallest shells that can be captured, 
which should never be removed from the beds, are taken and mar- 
keted, and this, unfortunately, is the actual case at the present time. 
(See pi. I.) Ultimately the higher price of shell becomes an ele- 
ment in the price of the finished product and is paid by the public at 
large without corresponding advantage to a single person connected 
Avith the industry. 

Let it be repeated that a high price to the fishermen is desirable, 
but in the present condition they reap no benefit. A higher price 
for a disproportionately smaller product brings no added profit. 
None are so directly interested in the conservation of mussels as the 
fishermen themselves. 

Of what advantage is it to the fishermen of the Wabash River, 
or to the State of Indiana, that shells are now more valuable, when 
a river that once supported a really important shelling industry is 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 5 

now practically depleted? Wherein is the benefit to Illinois, when 
only one fisherman can engage in shelling to-day where six worked 
with profit five years ago? What profit will Arkansas find, when its 
rivers are now the scene of the most exhaustive mussel fisherv ever 
known and the future is being robbed by the removal of infant shells 
that are shipped to the markets to be subsequently thrown into the 
discard by the manufacturers as too small for any useful purpose? 

THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY. 

An earlier general interest in the subject would liave been 
awakened had there been a better knowledge of the importance of 
shelling industries to the commuuities at large. As an illustration, 
the case of Madison, Ark., may be mentioned. The town itself has 
a population of about 300 and is supported by lumbering, farming, 
and fishing industries. During each of the past two j'ears shells 
and pearls have been marketed at this place to the value of about 
$20,000. This was a crop that could be counted upon regardless of 
weather conditions during the season, and it constituted a substan- 
tial element in the income of the community at large. Can this 
income be counted upon in the future? A dozen years ago fisher- 
men made their wages Avhen shells brought $4 per ton, and they can 
do no better at this time, Avhen they receive $23 per^ton. In 1913 they 
took 200 to 300 pounds per day, where originally thej^ made daily 
hauls of 1,000 to 1,800 pounds. The shells are now, it appears, about 
one-sixth as abundant as they were a dozen years ago. This is a 
rapid rate of depletion, and it is evident that the future can have 
little to offer unless something is done to insure the self-perpetuation 
of the mussel beds. 

The town of Black Rock, Ark., which has a population of about 
1,000, oifers an illustration where both fishing and manufacture 
are involved. It is estimated that approximately $50,000 is brought 
into the town and the territory about it each year, of which by 
far the greater amount is paid out in the town of Black Ilock itself. 
What does the future hold for this place? Reliable information 
shows that while a few years ago a sheller could take 1,200 pounds 
or more per day from the Black River at Black Rock, the daily 
catches now run from 100 to 200 pounds. Although shells are bring- 
ing about $20 per ton, there is scarcely a daily wage to be made, 
and as a consequence the shell fishery immediately about Black 
Rock is almost negligible. The shelling is now prosecuted princi- 
pally above Black Rock, in the upper waters and tributaries of the 
Black River, as about Pocahontas and elsewhere. The process of 
depletion is unchecked and the condition is clearly such as to awaken 
the enlightened sentiment of the community and the State at large 



6 PEOTECTION OF FEESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

to support measures that will insure permanent life and prosperity 
to the industry. Here is a business that yields a relativeh^ fixed re- 
turn in comparison with agricultural industries, which are so gen- 
erally affected, favorably or unfavorably, hj the vicissitudes of 
weather conditions. 

It is of much more immediate concern to the community at large 
than it is to the purchasers of shells or to the shellers themselves 
that the resources of a particular region should be conserved. It is 
a comparatively simple matter for the manufacturer to strip his 
plant and to remove his machinery to another locality with unde- 
pleted resources; it is an easy thing for the sheller, with his scant 
equipment in a house boat, to float down the river, looking to find 
another temporary home where his labors may be more profitable. 
It is the interest of the community that is threatened. The loss of 
a substantial industry affects the profits and the w^elfare of innumer- 
able persons Avho may have known little of their indirect interest in 
a business in which they did not immediately participate. The com- 
munities most immediately affected are those of the river towns 
which, as a general rule, are too limited in their sources of fixed 
income. 

From the standpoint of community economy, an unfortunate fea- 
ture of the musseb fishery, as it has been pursued up to this time, has 
been its nomadic character. The policy everywhere has been to clean 
up the beds of a locality, or of a stream as a whole, and then to move 
to new regions. Temporary cutting plants, or " factories," have fre- 
quently been established in the vicinity of active shelling, to move 
subsequently as the local fishery passed away. Only the larger and 
more firmly established branch plants of the principal factories have 
maintained a fixed location. 

It will be brought out later in this report that it does not appear 
possible to insure the best condition of the mussel beds, except by 
some plan of rotation ; but it would be desirable and favorable to the 
interest of all for the mussel fishery to be a permanent and depend- 
able feature of the industrial life of the broader communities, if not 
of particular restricted localities. 

The perpetuation of the mussel resources may well receive the 
best consideration of every State concerned and of the National 
Government as well. It affects the welfare of thousands of shellers, 
of hundreds of river towns over the broad Mississippi-Missouri 
Basin, of manufacturers and laborers, east and west, and, it might 
be said, of every user of pearl buttons, which comprises practically 
the entire population of the country. 

The Government and the States can accomplish the desired object 
by tw^o principal means — artificial propagation and legislative pro- 
tection. It is the province of the present paper to deal primarily 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS, 7 

with the subject of protective measures, but it will be advisable to 
give first an abbreviated account of the conditions and possibilities 
of artificial propagation, especially as the results of propagation will 
be greater or less according to the degree of protection extended to 
the young mussels. 

ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION OF MUSSELS BY THE GOVERNMENT- 
ESTABLISHMENT or PROPAGATION. 

The Bureau of Fisheries has always maintained an active interest 
in the development of the fresh-water mussel fishery of America, 
which, in its importance and breadth of territory, is entirely unique 
in the world. As early as 1897 and 1898, the shell fishery being then 
only i or 5 years old, the Fish Commission undertook investiga- 
tions relating to the various phases of the industry, and several re- 
ports were published dealing with the natural history of mussels, the 
shell and pearl fisheries, and the button industry. In a general report 
on the subject Dr. Hugh M. Smith then recommended measures for 
the protection of mussels, Xo action followed, and in consequence 
the scene of the most important fisheries has greatly shifted since 
that time. 

Some years later there began a special investigation of the repro- 
duction of mussels, which resulted in the methods of artificial propa- 
gation as developed by Prof. Lefevre and Prof. Curtis, of the Uni- 
versity of Missouri, in association with the Bureau, The Government 
then established the Fairport Biological Station to engage in the 
propagation of mussels and the studies of mussel problems, besides 
exercising wider activities in fishery investigations. For a number 
of years field investigations relating to the distribution, habits, and 
conditions of life of the mussels have been prosecuted by the staff and 
associates of the Bureau throughout the Mississippi Basin, 

For the first two years at the Fairport station mussel propagation 
was carried on in an experimental way, but beginning with 1012 the 
practical operations have been conducted upon as large a scale and 
over as wide a territory as the available resources permitted. During 
the past two years mussels have been propagated chiefly in the Mis- 
sippi River from Lake Pepin, in Minnesota, to New Boston, 111. ; in 
the Wabash River in Indiana, and in the "\Miite and Black Rivers of 
Arkansas. During the year ended June 30, 1913, about 150.000,000 
glochidia, or young mussels, were put out. and in the first half of the 
present fiscal year that number is fully equaled. Such figures appear 
large. It is not difficult by the methods of propagation to handle 
considerable numbers of glochidia ; indeed, it is necessary to work 
on an ample scale, for in mussel propagation, as in most forms of 
fish culture, what we can now do is to aid the young over the most 



8 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

critical period in their life history, after Avhich they must be left to 
continue the struggle for existence by their own efforts. 

We therefore plan to work in such a Avay that, even with the 
liberal discount that nature will surely apply to our returns, there 
may be left a real measure of benefit gained without undue cost. 
Many of the young will be lost from falling upon unsuitable bot- 
toms and from many other imfavorable conditions, such as confront 
every young mussel in nature with more or less frequency. We would 
like to remove all of the unfortunate conditions productive of loss, 
both to the mussels that we put out and to those that are propagated 
entirely by natural means; but this, of course, is not possible. 
There are, however, artificial conditions which do injury to the 
younger mussels, and it is both desirable and practicable to prevent 
such damage as far as can be done reasonably. 

RESULTS DEPENDE>'T UPON rROTECTTOK. 

In the regular fishery for mussels the beds are continually dragged 
over with rakes, tongs, crowfoot hooks, or dredges. It is inevitable 
that the young mussels will suffer to some extent from this process. 
It is quite unnecessary, however, for the " infant " mussels, many of 
them too small for any use at all and many more too small for any 
economical or proper use in manufacture, to be entirely removed 
from the beds. Mussels are thus uselessly destroyed that might be 
left to grow to a size at which they would be both commercially 
valuable and properly usable; meantime, too, they might take their 
natural part in the reproduction of the species. 

Furthermore, it would be desirable to leave portions of the rivers 
entirely undisturbed by the operations of shelling during periods of 
some years. This would accomplish a double object — it would leave 
the best conditions for the natural reproduction of the remnant of 
the old stock and for the growth of the young mussels and at the 
same time it would create a series of reserves in which artificial 
propagation could be carried on with the best conditions for maxi- 
mum results. In such closed regions the young mussels would have 
to contend against only the normal unfavorable conditions which 
all mussels have ever had to withstand, without an added toll of 
destruction being taken by the direct and indirect effect of the opera- 
tions of men. 

The simple " closing " of a depleted region, if the exhaustion has 
not proceeded too far, may be expected to lead to sure betterment, 
and even in time, if the closure were for a very long period, to a 
restoration of the foraier condition when mussels were so richly 
abundant. It will be advisable, however, to supplement natural 
processes by the methods of artificial propagation in order that the 



PKOTECTIOK OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 9 

reiDleiiishment may be hastened and a greater result gained in a 
shorter time. We have to contemplate that the beds that ma}^ be 
closed will have to be reopened after a definite period, for the fisher- 
men can not afford to work indefinitely on restricted and depleted 
areas, and the supply of available shells must be maintained. A 
proper solution as fair as possible to all will be found in a plan 
of rotation which will give rest periods to the different portions of 
a riA-er in succession. Let this measure be supplemented as far as 
may be by Government or State propagation of mussels in the resting 
regions. 

It is apparent that artificial propagation and protection are inti- 
mately related. Restrictive measures alone will yield benefits, but 
these will be greater if the protection is followed up by well-dii-ected 
propagation. Artificial propagation pursued independently may be 
exj^ected to bring results, but the advantages will be considerably 
diminished if no steps are taken to lessen the unnecessary destruc- 
tion of the young mussels thus given a start upon life. 

PROTECTION. 
ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION. 

Although at least 20 States participate directly in the mussel fish- 
ery for the shell trade, only 2 or 3 of these have taken any action 
of any kind for the protection of the resources. In some others 
measures have been proposed at various times, but without i^ceiving 
favorable consideration by the legislative bodies. Indeed, it is prob- 
ably well that this is the case, in view of the fact that there has been 
no general presentation of the case from all sides to aid in a just 
consideration of the matter. The Bureau is prompted to make this 
report in the hope that suggestions based upon a long-continued 
investigation of the shelling industry in all its phases maj^ be of 
material aid to the responsible bodies concerned in the determinalion 
of how best to perpetuate the mussel resources, giving' due regard to 
the local conditions involved. 

Any legislation to be most efi^ective must fulfill certain general con- 
ditions. It must be based upon just consideration of the welfare of 
all classes legitimately interested in the business, including shellers, 
buyers, manufacturers, and the public generally. This is important 
not only because fairness demands it but because it is manifestly 
impracticable to enforce a law which is framed in disregard of 
economic requirements. A law that makes possible the creation of 
a monopoly, or one that drives the buyers and manufacturers from 
the territory, or that sacrifices the good of the industry to revenue 
production to the State, would be so manifestly unsound that further 
comment seems unnecessary. 
23130°— 14 2 



10 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

Nevertheless, the element of sacrifice can not be entirely eliminated. 
In this case, as in others, iiltunate benefits can scarcely be obtained 
without some temporary sacrifice, although it should be aimed to 
make the immediate loss felt as little as possible. It is the unwill- 
ingness of individuals to make voluntary sacrifices, independently, 
for the good of the mussel beds that makes legislation of any kind 
necessary. There is a demand for legislative action only because, in 
the end, the welfare of all parties concerned is dependent upon the 
jDromotion of abundant growth of mussels. 

Finally an eminently desirable feature of any legislation is that 
it shall be so simple, f)lain, and undebatable as to minimize the diffi- 
culty of enforcement. Coupled with this there must be not only an 
effective penalty but machinery of enforcement that will work simply 
and certainly. 

The measures to be proposed will be considered in the light of 
these requirements, together with the basic conditions offered by the 
natural history and the conditions of life and reproduction of the 
mussels. 

EXAMINATION OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES. 

TWO MEASURES TOR IMMEDIATE APPLICATION. 

As appears from the remarks hitherto made, the restrictions which 
are immediately required for the preservation of the shell resources 
are — 

(1) The imposition of size limits for the protection of young 
mussels. 

(2) The adoption of a plan of rotation of closed regions, whereby 
the mussel beds may be given the best opportunity for propagation 
and growth. 

We do not at this time advocate any other limitations, and it will 
be attenijDted to show that these are so simple to apply and so prom- 
ising of effectual conservation that it is strongly advisable not to com- 
plicate the situation by a needless multiplicity of restrictions. These 
two measures will be fully discussed in subsequent sections of the paper. 

MEASURES NOT SUITED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS. 

Two other measures that have been more or less frequently pro- 
posed are the provision of a closed season during certain months and 
the restriction of the methods of taking mussels. ^^Iiile it is the 
purpose of the present* j^aper to discuss more especially the positive 
suggestions that are offered, it is not out of place to give briefly some 
of the reasons for exclusion of measures which may have been sug- 
gested by friends of the industry with sincerity of purpose and which 
are not upon their face devoid of merit. Always let it have the first 
place in our minds that the one object in view is not to hamper but 
to develop the mussel fishery. 



PROTECTION OF FEESH- WATER MUSSELS. 11 

Closed season of months. — The aim in establishing a closed season 
for the mussel fishery during a portion of the year is either to protect 
the mussels from disturbance during a breeding season or else to 
diminish the extent of the fishery by limiting its duration. 

It might be very proper to protect the mussels during the active 
breeding season, if such a season could be defined; but, as a matter 
of fact, the various species of mussels in any particular stream have 
J liferent seasons of breeding. The mussel industry is based upon a 
considerable number of species of economic mussels. There is a 
group which has a short breeding term during the summer months. 
Such are the species known commercially as " niggerhead," " pimple- 
back," " monkey-face," " maple-leaf," " blue-point," " three-ridge," 
etc. The " washboard " seems to have an intermediate breeding 
term during the early fall, though it may be that in some cases it 
carries its spawn into the winter. Many of the more important 
species of mussels have a long term of breeding; in the latter part 
of the summer and in the early fall the eggs are deposited into brood 
i:)Ouches within the shell of the female, and there, after they hatch 
and develop, they are carried over the winter, to be liberated in the 
spring and early sunmier." Of this kind are the " mucket," " sand- 
shell," " pocketbook," " butterfly," and others. 

In view of the variety of commercial mussel species and the di- 
versity of breeding seasons, it does not appear practicable to deter- 
mine upon a closed season that will accomplish its particular purpose. 
The Illinois law prohibits the taking of mussels in any navigable 
water in that State between the 1st day of October and the 1st day 
of April; but, as illustrating how such a measure may apply in a 
particular case, practically all of the mussels in the principal river 
of that State — the Illinois River — are short term or summer breeders, 
spawning some in June, July, and August, others in October and 
about that time. Only a few carry the spawn, after its development, 
through the winter. 

The principal objection to an enforced interruption of the fishery 
during a period of months is that it deprives the mussel fishermen 
of the right to earn a living by their profession during a portion of 
each year. This objection has real weight, and should be overborne 
only by decided advantages to be gained from a closed season. 

Restricting the methods of fishery. — The principal implements for 
taking mussels are the crowfoot bar, the rake, the fork, the tongs or 
scissors fork, the dip net, and the dredge. These several pieces of ap- 
jjaratus are variously adapted to conditions of depth, rate of current, 
and character of bottom, as well as to the aptitudes and customs of 
the fishermen. Before a method should be prohibited it should be 

" Possibly thcje mussels liberate glochidia to a limited extent during the fall and win- 
ter ; but the general i^tafement is well founded. 



12 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

known that it can be replaced by one of the more suitable methods, 
or else that it is so positively injurious as to require its elimination. 
The only implement of capture against which complaints are gen- 
erall}^ made is the crowfoot hook, but this is the only method in gen- 
eral use which is adapted for taking mussels in the deeper water, and 
it is probably in more common use than any other method. Perhaps 
in time improvements upon this hook will be adopted to lessen its 
injuriousness, or other methods capable of replacing it will be better 
known. In the light of present conditions it would work an unneces- 
sary hardship upon a very large number of fishermen to prevent its 
use, especially when it appears that the i^rotection of the mussels can 
be accomplished by methods more equitable to all concerned. 

Still other measures have sometimes been advanced looking to the 
limitation of the number of shellers to be permitted to work within 
a given territory or to the leasing of shelling rights. Since such pro- 
posals have not yet been offered in connection wdth any properly 
worked-out plan by which serious injustice would be avoided and the 
interest of the j)ublic safeguarded they may be dismissed with the 
remark that it is not simply the protection of mussels that is desired 
but the protection of the mussels for human use without interference 
with common human rights. The absence of inherent wrong in an 
idea does not commend it if it carries Avithin itself the seeds of its 
own defeat by a method of application, or a want of method, that 
allows opportunity for manifestly unjust and intolerable conditions 
to arise. 

There remains to deal with the necessity for the two measures that 
are advocated and to discuss the methods of application. This can 
be more adequately done in distinct sections. 

SIZE LIMIT— NECESSITY AND APPLICATION. 

EXHAUSTIVE NATURE OF THE FISHERY, 

The necessity for imposing restrictions upon the size of mussels 
to be removed from the beds is brought out more clearly by the 
photographs than could be done by any lengthy discussion. All 
of the shells showai in plates i and ii were actually taken for 
market, sold, and shipped to the factory. The smallest ones (in the 
three upper rows on plate i) were not wanted at any factory; they 
were bought only because the fishermen had thrown them into the 
piles along with the larger shells, " to add weight." Most of the 
very smallest shells, those under 1 inch in length, are subsequently 
lost in handling, by falling through the forks or otherwise wasting 
as they are thrown into the car or from the car to the bin. None of 
the shells in the three upper rows of plate i would ordinarily be 
used ]>y any manufacturer. It is true that some of the shells shown 






/^ 



f 








%i 



^^ 






\ 



%. 



••, 



$• 



SMALL SHELLS ACTUALLY MARKETED. ALL EXCEPT THOSE OF THE THREE LOWER ROWS 
SHOULD BE LEFT IN THE RIVERS. 

[About one-half actual size, which is shown in inches at right of plate.] 



U. S. B. F.— Doc. 793 



Plate II. 




LARGER SHELLS MARKETED AND ADVANTAGEOUSLY USED. 
[About one-half actual size, which is shown in inches at left of plate.] 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 13 

have had one bhink cut out, and these were actually cut at a com- 
mercial i:>lant, but the instance was a very rare one and was certainly 
unprofitable. Even if the manufacturer desired it, the cutters will 
not handle shells from which only one blank can be cut. since the 
waste of time outweighs the saving of material. 

Consequently all shells less than about 1^ inches in length, no 
matter what the quality, are thrown into the discard. There can 
he no difference of opinion as to the fivre to aste fulness of tal-ing shells 
of this size. 

The shells shown in the illustration are not the smallest that could 
be found. Some shells observed in the fishermen's boats were onh^ 
one-half inch in the greatest diameter. Out of the water these 
are entirely without use. The fisherman who saves them, thinking 
that they add weight to his heap, would doubtless be surprised to 
learn that he would have to handle several times and clean 200 of 
such shells to add 1 cent to his earnings, for it would take nearly 
half a million of them to make l*ton. 

The shells in the fourth and fifth rows, counting from the top 
in plate ii, are used at the factories when received, and are some- 
times particularly favored where the quality is as good as in those 
from many Arkansas rivers, and the shells will yield two or three 
blanlis of 16 to 20 lin^s. Such blanks are of a suitable thickness and 
work up economically besides having a good quality. Some of the 
shells in these two rows show how blanks of 18, 10, and 11 lines are 
worked out, a "line " in button measure representing the fortieth 
part of an inch. 

The use of shells taken between 1 i and 2 inches in greatest diameter 
does not, therefore, like the marketing of those under 1^ inches, repre- 
sent absolute waste, but it does denote relative waste or i^eal short- 
sightedness from the economic point of view. Shells of this size will 
average about 30.000 pairs to the ton, while mussels of such a practical 
size as 2| inches will average only 15,000. The number of blanks ob- 
tained from a ton of shells of the latter size would be just the same as 
from a ton of the smaller shells, notwithstanding that onh^ half as 
many shells are handled. We are thus, tohen amng the smaller shells, 
depleting the nvussel heds at twice the necessary rate without any 
corresponding ad vantage. 

WASTE ILLUSTRATED. 

There is given below a table that will repay careful examination 
as illustrating the wastefulness of using the small shells. While the 
figures must be understood to be only approximate, they are based 
upon careful weights and counts of a number of shells from several 
localities. The shells were all "niggerheads"'' and were all obtained 
after shipment to factories. 



14 



PBOTECTION OF FEESH-WATER MUSSELS. 



The first two columns show the limits of size for each lot used, the 
greatest diameter being the basis of measurement. 

The third column shows the approximate number of pairs of shells 
composing a ton, the unit of purchase; multiplying this number b}^ 2 
would give the number of single shells per ton. 

In the fourth column there is given, in the case of the critical 
sizes, the number of 18-line blanks readily taken from a single shell 
(which is one-half the number yielded by a pair of shells, or an indi- 
vidual mussel). 

The fifth column indicates the number of gross of blanks, by com- 
putation, yielded by a ton of shells. This computation is based upon 
the cutting of 18-line blanks (not the larger 20-line blanks that have 
been taken from some of the larger shells in the illustration). Some 
of these shells are cut excessively close to the tips, on account of 
taking too many larger line blanks. It must be understood that dif- 
ferent sized shells are adapted for different lines of buttons. The 
data herein is for comparative purposes only. 

Table of Sizes, Weights, and Button Production for Niggerhead Shells 

(Approximate Figures). 



Longest dimension. 


Number 
of mussels 
per ton. 


18-line 

blanlvs 

per single 

shell. 


Quantity 
of blanks 
per ton. 


Refer to 
illustra- 
tion. 


Greater 
than— 


Less 
than— 


Inches. 

li 
1| 
1| 
2 
2J 
2J 

2% 

3 

3J 

^4 


Inches. 

1 
li 

l1 
2 
2i 
2i 
2f 

3 
3^ 
4 


174,000 
110,000 
55,000 
33,000 
26,000 
20,000 
15,000 
10,500 

8, .500 
6,200 
4,000 
3,200 




Gross. 


Plate I— 
1st row. 
2nd row. 
3rd row. 
4th row. 
5th row. 1 
6th row. 
7th row. 
8th row. 

Plate II- 
1st row. 
2nd row. 
3rd row. 
4th row. 










2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

o7-8 
a 10 
ol2 
a 14 


917 
1,008 
1,111 
1,042 
875 
G r a d - 
ually 
dimin- 
ishing 
to less 
than 
650 per 
ton. 





"At the time of making this table only a few of the larger-sized shells were available, so the estimates 
oi blanks are less accurate. 

It may be seen from the table that a marketable ton of nigger- 
heads could be composed of the shells of 3,200 or of 33,000 mussels, 
according as the shells were 4 inches in length or only 1^ inches. As a 
matter of fact, no marketed ton is ever composed of mussels of an 
exactly uniform size; furthermore, the extremely large niggerhead 
shells are very rare and generally not very desirable on account of 
inferior quality and disproportionate waste. A ton of shells from 
a region of depletion will also include a number of the smallest and 
not strictly marketable shells. 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 15 

Now, let us take a concrete illustration: Several counts of mussels 
gathered by shellers in the ^Vliite River near Clarendon, Ark., were 
made in October, 1913 ; from these an average was taken that fairly 
represents the catches being made at that time in that region. It was 
found that GO per cent by number of the shells taken were of a size 
less than 2 inches in greatest dimension; also that a ton of shells 
comprised 20.500 pairs, of which 12,300 were less than 2 inches. Now, 
it is evident that if these smaller shells were returned to the bed 
we would be depleting the bed less than one-half as fast as at present. 
This would be the substantial advantage that such a size limit would 
have to the mussel beds ; and any advantage to the mussel beds is an 
ultimate advantage to the fishermen, manufacturers, and all others 
in any way dependent upon the perpetuation of the mussels. Under 
the working of a 2-inch size limit, 60 shells out of every 100 then 
being taken on the niggerhead beds of that vicinity would have been 
thrown back. This seems to be asking a good deal, but not so mucli 
as at first appears, for the undersized shells constitute only 38 per 
cent of the weight or selling value of the shells taken. 

On the other hand, both sheller and manufacturer would be saved 
the trouble of handling over and over again an unnecessarily large 
number of shells. A ton of shells (from the same locality) com- 
prising only those above 2 inches in gi-eatest dimension w^ould con- 
tain about 13,000 pairs, or 37 per cent less than the number now 
found in a ton (20,500), while these shells, the smallest ones being 
eliminated, would produce at least 10 per cent more buttons of 
corresponding sizes. 

SIZE LIMIT IN RELATION TO ECONOMY. 

The figures given above are, of course, based upon counts and com- 
l>utations of shells from a particular locality and must not be as- 
sumed to have any general application, but the facts and principles 
derived do have a universal bearing. If such a size limit as 2 inches 
is adopted, the saving to the mussel beds and to the future of all 
interested parties is out of all proportion to the immediate loss to 
any party ; and even the immediate loss is to some extent compensated 
by the saving resulting from having to do with a lesser number of 
shells that yield a greater number of buttons per ton. 

Undeniably some temporary sacrifice is entailed, but unless it be 
admitted that temporary sacrifice will be accepted, it is useless to 
consider any manner of restriction for ultimate benefit. 

There is one point that is brought out in the table on page 14 
that merits attention from the broad standpoint of economy. In all 
shells there is a proportion of unavoidable waste, since the entire 
weight of the shell can not be transformed into buttons. In very 
small shells we may expect an undue waste, on account of the fact that 



16 PROTECTIOX OF FRESH- WATEE MUSSELS. 

only one or two blanks can be cut out, lea^dng a larger bulk of shell 
in proportion to the number of blanks gained. On the other hand, 
in very large shells a high degree of waste is involved because of 
excessiA^e thickness, which must be ground from the blanks, and be- 
cause of the extra weight of the discarded portion. Somewhere 
between these extremes is the size of shell that yields the largest num- 
ber of blanks as compared with the waste or the weight of shell that 
does not go into buttons. As shown by the data' in the fifth column of 
the table, the shells a little above 2 inches in size are those (for this 
species) that make the best yield per ton for the small lines for which 
there is the greatest general demand. 

REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED 2-INCH LIMIT. 

Argument might be made in favor of a higher size limit as being 
still more favorable to the preservation of the mussels, but it is 
sufficient to say that the economic conditions would not justify a 
higher limit. At 2 inches a sufficiently severe restriction is placed 
upon the fishery, and to go further would be practically to pro- 
hibit the pursuit of shelling in so many localities that excessive hard- 
ship would be caused. 

As consideration thus far has been given almost exclusively to 
the niggerhead shell, the question may well be raised, Will the same 
limit applA^ to other species of shells? The minimum size of 2 inches 
suggested can be taken as an absolute minimum, since there is no 
species of any importance for which it would be too high. This 
minimum would not, however, give the same degree of protection 
to the larger forms, such as the washboard, the bluepoint, and the 
mucket. Should a minimum size be fixed with particular reference 
to any one of these varieties, it would necessarily be a good deal 
liigher. 

In the present paper recommendation is made for this one-size 
limit alone, for the following reasons : 

1. All conditions considered, it is the most appropriate limit that 
could be designated for the niggerhead mussel, which is at present 
the most important species of wide distribution, and which is, further- 
more, the species most liable to rapid extermination. This and spe- 
cies closely like it, as the pigtoe, the pimple-back, and the maple- 
leaf, are chiefly those that are now being taken m the very small sizes. 

2. The same size applies equally well to the related species just 
mentioned, as well as to the "hickory-nut," or "Missouri nigger- 
head," and the "butterfly." 

3. The larger species, as the "washboard," "bluepoint," and 
" mucket," are generally so evidently valueless in the small sizes that 
shellers do not take them. At least it is not yet of observation that 
particular injury is being done to these species in this way. 



PEOTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 17 

4. To insure the least trouble of enforcement of the law, it is neces- 
sary that a minimum size be set, below Avhich no shells of any sjiecies 
may be retained. There are many different species of commercial 
mussels, and some of them so intergrade as to make exact determina- 
tion a nice matter in some cases. Distinct size limits for the differ- 
ent species would introduce peculiar difficulties into the practical 
workings of enforcement ; it w^ould be more troublesome to the sheller 
to observe the law voluntarily, and loopholes for evasion would more 
easily be found by the offender of wrong intent. 

Should conditions in certain States or streams subsequently require 
a higher limit for particular kinds of shells, a supplemental limit 
may be fixed for designated species; but this could be done without 
affecting the application of a 2-inch limit as an absolute or universal 
limit below which no shells of any species could be lawfully taken. 
It is desirable that few different limits should ever be used, and it 
seems expedient to have but one size limit until the first legislation 
shall have been tried out. 

DETAILS ESSENTIAL TO EFFECTIVE EEGISEATIOX. 

In concluding this section emphasis may he laid on the vabie <»f 
certain details of legislation. 

Allowable margin of undersised shells. — While it may seem desir- 
able that no undersized shell at an}' time should be taken away, never- 
theless it is necessary to make allowance for a margin of unintentional 
error. Only if the shellers and buyers were to apply an instrument 
of measure to each individual shell would all possibility of error be 
eliminated. The sheller Avill naturally, after a few measurements, 
come to judge by the eye, and it is desirable that the law should be 
somewhat liberal, rather than too stringent in the allowance for 
mistakes. There should, accordingly, be a supplemental provision 
that if not more than 5 per cent of the shells by number (not by 
weight) of any bushel are found to be below the size limit, the law 
shall not be presumed to be violated. 

Illegal possession. — To be practicable of enforcement, the law 
should be so worded as to make it illegal not only to bring ashore or 
to offer for sale, but also to have in possession, fresh-water mussels 
or clams of a size less than 2 inches in greatest dimension. This one 
provision will obviate much unnecessary expense, as well as undesir- 
able complications in the detection of violations and the prosecution 
of offenders. Furthermore, since buyers of the shells would be 
equally liable to prosecution, the effect would be to destroy the mar- 
ket for undersized shells, and thus in the most effective way to re- 
strain the shellers from taking them. 

Method of measwing mussels. — It will be noted that the method of 
measure is stated as " in greatest dimension," with a view to elimi- 



18 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

iiating every possibility of uncertainty or difference of opinion. Mus- 
sels are sometimes measured in length or width or height, but on 
account of the irregular form of mussel shells these dimensions are 
not always interpreted in the same way. In testing the blank-making 
capacity of a shell, commercial men sometimes measure the " width 
on the face " ; that is, between the lateral hinge tooth and the lower 
margin of the shell. This measure can of course only be taken from 
an open shell, and therefore could not serve for our purpose. It is 
worth while to call attention to the fact that a 2-inch shell as meas- 
ured in gi-eatest dimension would be a good deal smaller than a 
2-inch shell in commercial measurement. 

An inspector would need to be equipped with an ordinary^ rectan- 
gular caliper. If a shell should be found to measure more than 2 
inches in any linear direction it would be considered as above the 
size limit. 

CLOSED REGIONS— NECESSITY AND APPLICATION. 

In addition to the provision of size limits it is strongly recom- 
mended that certain portions of the rivers be closed for rest periods 
covering several years. It might be thought that in regions of ex- 
treme depletion the operation of a size limit would, by making the 
fishery less profitable, have the effect of causing a practical rest pe- 
riod, but this can not be expected, for, stimulated by the high price 
of shells and the ever-present hope of making a pearl find, the local 
shellers will hardly ever desist entirely from the fishery. 

No better way of giving protection to mussels can be found than 
that of entirely stopping the shelling upon a series of beds, although 
the plan must be applied in such a way as not to reduce the supply of 
mussels unduly and suddenly and with as careful regard as possible 
to the established interest of communities. 

IX.TURY TO SPAWNING MUSSELS AND TO YOUNG. 

Some of the conditions that make a system of closed regions par- 
ticularl}^ advisable for the conservation of fresh-water mussels may 
be briefly mentioned: 

1. It has been previously stated that some of the mussels are spawn- 
ing, or with spawn, during any period of the year. Many of the 
most important species are spawning daring the late spring, early 
and mid summer; other equally important species form their eggs 
in the late summer, when they become fertilized and develop into the 
glochidium stage, but the mother clam retains them in marsupial 
pouches within her shell during the entire winter and even into the 
summer. All species of mussels carry the eggs in the marsupial 
pouches during the process of development to the glochidium stage 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 19 

or longer, whether the period be for a few weeks or for a few months. 
In this condition the mussels are said to be gravid. It is readily ob- 
served that Avhen gravid mussels are disturbed they frequently dis- 
charge the young, regardless of whether these are mature enough to 
be liberated from the parent or not; certain species, such as the nig- 
gerhead, are particularly likely to do this. 

In the commercial fisheiy, therefore, not only is much spawn de- 
stroyed when large gravid mussels are captured, but it is quite prob- 
able that other mussels, disturbed on the bottom, though not captured, 
are caused to abort the young in an immature stage when they are 
entirely unable to complete the development without the parent. 

2. In the stage of existence immediately after liberation from the 
parent, the young mussels are parasitic upon fish. We are not here 
concerned with them during this period of the life history. AVlien 
they are dropped from the fish many of the young mussels do not at 
once take up life in the sand or mud of the bottom, but we find them 
forming delicate threads by which they hang from plants or sticks 
or stones or from clam shells, and thus are kept from being washed 
away or smothered in the mud of the bottom. We may imagine the 
harm to these little mussels that is unavoidably wrought when the 
beds are continually dragged over. In like manner, the little shells 
that are just beginning to take hold in the bottom may be torn out by 
the rake or hooks, to be smothered or washed away to less favorable 
bottoms. It will be remembered that wdien mussels first begin life in 
the thread stage or in the bottom if the thread stage is omitted, they 
are too small to be found without a microscope. 

3. One of the principal methods of capturing mussels is with the 
bar and hooks dragged over a large area of mussel bed in taking a 
relatively small number of shells. There is chance for these hooks to 
injure many little shells when each drag, requiring a period of only a 
few minutes, covers a space of bottom 16 feet wide and several hun- 
dred feet long. Nevertheless, it is not certain that there is any 
method to take its place, and any implement used will accomplish 
some injury to the very youngest mussels. 

CONSIDERATIOXS nETER:\riNING SIZE OF CT^OSED REGIONS. 

In planning for the closing of portions of rivers for periods of 
years consideration should be given to community needs as well as 
to general economic and biological conditions. On the one hand, the 
closure will be more effective in result, as well as easier of enforce- 
ment, if the regions of closure are made very large; w^hile, on the 
other hand, making the closed regions smaller might cause less 
economic inconvenience. If, for example, the entire Illinois River 
should be closed to mussel fishery for a period of several years, there 



20 PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

might be a substantial uncompensated loss to some communities, 
where there are factories employing labor to cut shells derived from 
that river. On the other hand, should we divide the river up into 
small sections of 2 or 3 miles in extent, some of which Avould be open 
while others would be closed under the law, it is apparent that such 
a plan would be almost impossible of enforcement. To prevent shell- 
ing from being carried on in all these little closed areas would re- 
quire a force of wardens and an expense entirely incommensurate 
with the object to be gained. 

It is held advisable to di^dde a river within a. single State into 
some four or six sections for the purpose of establishing closed 
regions. One-half — that is, two or three — of these sections, taken in 
alternation, could be ordered closed for a period of five years, during 
which no mussel fishing at all should be allowed in the closed sections, 
although it would be regularly prosecuted in the alternate portions 
of the stream. It would be convenient to break a river at points 
where there was a substantial community interest in the shelling. 

PRACTICABLE DIVISION OF RIVER SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATED. 

For example, let us apply this method of dividing a stream to the 
TMiite and Black Rivers in Arkansas. Starting from the head- 
waters of the Bhick River, we find the first center of economic interest 
at Black Rock, another on the ^^-liite River at Newport, and a third 
at Clarendon. Xow, the river might properly be broken at these 
points, forming four main sections. The fishery might then be 
entirely j^rohibited for several years from the mouth of the river to 
Clarendon, while permitted from Clarendon to Xewport, and again 
prohibited from Newport northward to Black Rock on the Black 
River, and to Batesville or other suitable point on the upper AMiite, 
while permitted from Black Rock and Batesville northward on all 
the tributaries. We would have the river system divided into four 
sections, which would be probably as nearly equivalent as could be 
expected. Furthermore, none of the three towns mentioned Avould 
be cut off from the local supply of shells, except in one direction. 

The shellers, generally speaking, would be little affected, since, with 
their house boats, they could move from one portion of the river to 
another. Those shellers who do not use house boats, but are local 
residents and go out only by clay from their homes, would be most 
affected, and it is these generally who are most in favor of closing 
portions of a river. They recall how much more easily shells were 
taken in past times when the shells were abundant, and the}^ would 
be willing to do something else meantime in order that the beds 
may be given a rest and the shells again become numerous. Shelling 
has no attraction over any other form of crude labor when the shells 
are so scarce that a wage can scarcely be made. 



PROTECTION OF PKESH-WATER MUSSELS. 21 

Taking the St. P^rancis River in Arkansas as another ilhistration, 
the river might be broken at Madison, Parkin, and Marked Tree. 
It is true that there are not many mussels, according to report, 
above Marked Tree, but the region between jNIadison and Parkin has 
beds Avhich ma}^ well balance the remainder of the river. 

The "Wabash River, Ind., is one in which the need for protection is 
most evident; and this stream could be divided at Vincennes and two 
other points selected with reference to their economic interest in shell- 
ing and with regard to an equitable division of the river system. 

It might seem that an ideal method of rotation -would be based 
upon the division of a system into six portions, only one of which 
should be worked in any one year; a new portion would be opened 
each year, while each territory w^ould enjoy a rest period of five 
years between successive " open " years for that particular territory. 
It will be evident that such a scheme, however correct in theory, 
would be entirely impracticable. The plan of keeping certain re- 
gions closed for periods of years while other regions are worked 
continuously during a corresponding period of years may have some 
imperfections, but it is ]3rol3ably the best that can be worked out 
without practically suspending the industry. Undoubtedly the plan 
will work most efficiently if a proper discretion is used in its appli- 
cation. 

PROCEDURE FOR p:STABUISHING CIX)SED REGIONS. 

The law should plainly stipulate and establish the principle of 
the closure of the rivers by regions or sections, but the determina- 
tion of which specific sections are to be closed should be left for 
determination after investigation by properly qualified authorities. 

A comparatively simple plan may be suggested under which the 
most careful consideration could be given to the local conditions 
involved as w^ell as to the rights of the State as a whole. The legis- 
lature could authorize and instruct the proper State authorities, as 
the State fish commission, to give due consideration and study to 
the needs of the mussel industry and determine what portions of 
the streams of the State should be closed to the mussel fishery for 
a period of years. It could be further provided that, after the pre- 
liminary determination of plans for closure, due advertisement should 
be made in all regions affected and . opportunity given for public 
hearings in such regions, after which the commission should sub- 
mit its final recommendations to the governor of the State, who 
should then issue a proclamation ordering the entire interruption 
of a mussel fishery in the regions selected for closure. The original 
legislative act should provide that the proclamation so made should 
have the full effect of law, and should specify the penalties that 



22 PROTECTION OP FKESH-WATER MUSSELS. 

would be incurred by violations. It is desirable also that the gov- 
ernor, upon recommendation of the commission, should have power 
to reopen the closed regions when such action was judged necessary. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 

Powers of officers. — It is necessary not only that the duty of en- 
forcement of the law be assigned to specified State officers, but also 
that they be expressly given the right to inspect and examine mussels 
or shells in the boats or on land and be empowered to seize mussels or 
shells held in violation of the law. It is practically impossible to 
bring about convictions when the opportunity is allowed for destruc- 
tion of the evidence between the time of detection and the date of trial. 

Permits for special cases. — In cases where for the purposes of in- 
vestigations it may be necessary to take small mussels, the State 
officers charged with the enforcement of the law should have by law 
the right to issue special permits for the taking of undersized mussels 
for scientific uses and not for sale. 

Expenses of mussel protection. — The plans which have been ad- 
vanced in this report can be carried out with a minimum of expense. 
The simplicity of the measures would reduce the trouble and cost of 
inspection to the smallest practicable figure. The assignment of the 
duties of enforcement to existing State commissions or boards which 
already have field deputies or wardens obviates the creation of any 
special offices for execution of the mussel laws. 

The question of whether steps should be taken to raise special funds 
on account of the additional burdens that would be placed upon the 
present boards is one that would be determined by each State in the 
light of its own conditions and established customs. It would be 
very undesirable to create a burdensome tax; to do so would only 
react against the State, and in the end the tax would be paid by the 
shellers, who are now making only a meager living, for the local 
shellers would have to sell in competition with the shellers from 
States where more liberal conditions prevail. 

It is another matter, however, to require a nominal license fee for 
the privilege of working upon the public mussel beds. Such a fee 
need not be greater than $1 or $2 per season, an amount which could 
be paid by anyone who wished to shell seriously. Perhaps the idea 
of a fee of any kind would arouse some antagonism among a certain 
class of shellers who would enjoy the public stores without return of 
any kind. Some shellers favor such a license system, and the writer 
believes that they must all eventually come to see that it works to 
their own particular advantage in many ways. It tends to create a 
class of professional shellers, besides providing the necessary means 
for promoting the abundance of shells. 



PROTECTION OF FRESH-WATER MUSSELS. 23 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION. 

The legislation recommended for protection of mussel beds, based 
upon the considerations discussed in the preceding pages, may be 
-summarized as folloAvs: 

I. (a) A single size limit should be fixed as applicable to all shells 
taken. The minimum size here proposed is 2 inches. 
(b) The method of measuring the shell should be defined as 

" in greatest dimension." 
(«?) Possession of undersized shells, whether or not sold or 
offered for sale, should be illegal. 

(d) There should be an allowable margin of undersized shells 

for unintentional violation. 
II. (a) Alternate portions of rivers or river systems should be 
closed for a period of years, to permit recuperation of 
mussel beds. 
(b) The units of division of a river system should be large 
enough to make enforcement practicable with least 
expense. 

(e) The river Avould conveniently be broken at the few points 

where there is most community interest involved in the 
shelling. 

(d) Approximately five-year periods of closure are recom- 

mended, with some discretion allowed to executive offi- 
cers as to duration of period. 

(e) Closed regions should be established by proclamation of 

the governor of the State, after expert examination of 
thse mussel beds and after public hearings on the sub- 
ject in the communities affected. 
III. (a) Officers charged with enforcement of the law should be 
empowered to examine mussels or shells in boats or on 
land and to seize the catch in case of violation, as well as 
to arrest or cause arrests to be made. 
(b) Provision should be made for the issue of permits for the 
taking of mussels of any size or in any region for scien- 
tific uses and not for sale. 

o 



